Joining the ranks of historically challenged members of Congress to sign onto Randy Forbes's litany of Christian nationalist lies about American history is none other than presidential candidate Ron Paul, who, in an article on his campaign website about the courts and the "elitist, secular Left" driving religion from the public square, shows off his own ignorance of our Constitution.

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion."

The Constitution is "replete with references to God?" Even Randy Forbes, in his replete with inaccuracies resolution, only found one God reference in the Constitution -- in the document's date -- "a religious punctuation mark," according to Mr. Forbes.

"Whereas the delegates to the Constitutional Convention concluded their work by placing a religious punctuation mark at the end of the Constitution in the Attestation Clause, noting not only that they had completed the work with 'the unanimous consent of the States present' but they had done so 'in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven';"

In keeping with my promise from a prior post -- that each time this legislative abomination gets more co-sponsors, I'm going to debunk another one of its lies -- I'm going to debunk another one of its lies.

"Whereas in 1864, Congress passed an act authorizing each state to display statues of two of its heroes in the United States Capitol, resulting in numerous statues of noted Christian clergymen and leaders at the Capitol, including Gospel ministers such as the Revs. James A. Garfield, John Peter Muhlenberg, Jonathan Trumbull, Roger Williams, Jason Lee, Marcus Whitman, and Martin Luther King Jr.; Gospel theologians such as Roger Sherman; Catholic priests such as Father Damien, Jacques Marquette, Eusebio Kino, and Junipero Serra; Catholic nuns such as Mother Joseph; and numerous other religious leaders;"

Now, obviously, the fact that these statues are in the Capitol's National Statuary Hall is not a lie. As I noted in another post on this resolution, this is why Randy Forbes's biggest cheerleader, pseudo-historian David Barton, carefully chooses from only 9 of the resolution's 75 "Whereases" -- the 9 that describe the existence of physical religious references and artwork in and on public buildings -- to use as examples of its historical facts. So, to be clear, I am not saying that Mr. Forbes is lying by saying that the statues in this "Whereas" exist. The distortions are in Mr. Forbes's descriptions of some of the statues, and in the fact that one of the statues itself is based on a story that is simply not true.

As an example of what I mean by distortions in Mr. Forbes's descriptions of the historical figures depicted in the statues, look at his description of James A. Garfield, who in the "Whereas" is described as a Gospel minister -- the Rev. James A. Garfield. Garfield, although not actually an ordained minister, was, in fact, a preacher before entering politics, but this, of course, is not the reason that the state of Ohio chose him as one of the two figures to represent their state in the Statuary Hall. Obviously, Ohio chose Garfield, whose statue was installed in 1886, because he was a president from their state who had been assassinated five years earlier. With a recent poll showing the disturbing lack of knowledge of even the most basic events in American history among our country's 17-year-olds, there's a good chance that many young people reading H. Res. 888 would be completely unaware that Garfield had even been a president, and might actually think that his statue is in the Capitol because he was a minister.

The next statue in Mr. Forbes's "Whereas," that of Rev. John Peter Muhlenberg, actually was placed in the Statuary Hall by the state on Pennsylvania to portray a religious story. The problem with this one is that the story it depicts never happened.

Since I already wrote a detailed rebuttal of the Muhlenberg myth this past summer for other reasons, I'm just going to repeat that here.

From "PBS Show Gets it Right with the Story of Peter Muhlenberg's Robe"

Originally posted on August 4, 2007

With the beating PBS has been taking lately over its unfortunate decision to air the pseudo-documentary, "Wall of Separation," I wanted to write something about one of my favorite PBS programs, one that never fails to live up to the standards that we expect from PBS. In stark contrast to the perpetuation of the religious right's American history myths with its recent airing of"Wall of Separation," a recent episode of PBS's History Detectives included a segment disproving one of the most popular of these myths -- a myth that not only adorns the cover of one of David Barton's books and appears on a mousepad sold by WallBuilders, but is depicted in stone in the U.S. Capitol Building.

The myth is the story of Peter Muhlenberg, the Lutheran minister who, since the mid 1800s, is said to have stood before his congregation in January 1776, and, after delivering a stirring, patriotic farewell sermon, removed his clerical robe to reveal the uniform of a Revolutionary Army officer, enlisting three hundred soldiers for his "German Regiment" on the spot.

The Muhlenberg myth has been around for a long time, but, as seemingly harmless myths like this one often do when politically useful, it has recently become even more popular, being a dramatic example of an historical justification for exempting churches from the modern day 501(c)3 regulations prohibiting the preaching of politics from the pulpit.

For those unfamiliar with PBS's History Detectives, the program's team investigates stories sent in by viewers, usually in possession of some interesting or mysterious historical artifact. In this case, the artifact was a Revolutionary era clerical robe, donated by the Henkel family to the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, and said to be the robe removed by Muhlenberg in 1776 to reveal his uniform. The result of History Detective Elyse Luray's investigation? The robe in question did belong to Muhlenberg, but the legendary disrobing is almost certainly just a myth. A transcript of the entire segment can be downloaded here.

Occasionally, as in this case, I already know the answer to the mystery the History Detectives are trying to solve, so I wasn't surprised when the Muhlenberg expert visited by Elyse Luray, Gregg Roeber of Penn State University, dated the disrobing legend to 1849, attributing the story to Muhlenberg's grandnephew, Henry Augustus Muhlenberg.

Although Peter Muhlenberg appears in my book primarily because of a completely unrelated lie, I did include a brief mention of the disrobing myth. I didn't go much further than the story's 1849 origin, however, because I plan to write more about this one in my eventual third volume, much of which will focus on how and why so many of the myths and lies, still in use by today's religious right, were invented during the nineteenth century. But, after watching the History Detectives segment, my curiosity got the better of me and I decided to dig out my notes on this one and look into it a bit more.

To begin with, here's the story as it first appeared in Henry Augustus Muhlenberg's 1849 book The Life of Major-General Peter Muhlenberg of the Revolutionary Army.

He [Peter Muhlenberg] was immediately commissioned, and proceeded to Dunmore to raise the regiment committed to his charge. Upon this occasion a well-authenticated anecdote is told of him, which gives us a deep insight into the character of the man, and the feelings which induced him to abandon the altar for the sword. It shows of what sterling metal the patriots of olden time were formed.

Upon his arrival at Woodstock, his different congregations, widely scattered along the frontier, were notified that upon the following Sabbath their beloved pastor would deliver his farewell sermon. Of this event numerous traditionary accounts are still preserved in the vicinity in which it took place, all coinciding with the written evidence. The fact itself merits a prominent place in this sketch, for in addition to the light it sheds upon the feelings which actuated the American people in the commencement of the revolutionary struggle, it also shows with what deep earnestness of purpose Mr. Muhlenberg entered upon his new career.

The appointed day came. The rude country church was filled to overflowing with the hardy mountaineers of the frontier counties, among whom were collected one or more of the independent companies to which the forethought of the Convention had given birth. So great was the assemblage, that the quiet burial-place was filled with crowds of stern, excited men, who had gathered together, believing that something, they knew not what, would be done in behalf of their suffering country. We may well imagine that the feelings which actuated the assembly were of no ordinary kind. The disturbances of the country, the gatherings of armed men, the universal feeling that liberty or slavery for themselves and their children hung upon the decision the Colonies then made, and the decided step taken by their pastor, all aroused the patriotic enthusiasm of the vast multitude, and rendered it a magazine of fiery passion, which needed but a spark to burst into an all-consuming flame.

In this spirit the people awaited the arrival of him whom they were now to hear for the last time. He came, and ascended the pulpit, his tall form arrayed in full uniform, over which his gown, the symbol of his holy calling, was thrown. He was a plain, straightforward speaker, whose native eloquence was well suited to the people among whom he laboured. At all times capable of commanding the deepest attention, we may well conceive that upon this great occasion, when high, stern thoughts were burning for utterance, the people who heard him hung upon his fiery words with all the intensity of their souls. Of the matter of the sermon various accounts remain. All concur, however, in attributing to it great potency in arousing the military ardour of the people, and unite in describing its conclusion. After recapitulating, in words that aroused the coldest, the story of their sufferings and their wrongs, and telling them of the sacred character of the struggle in which he had unsheathed his sword, and for which he had left the altar he had vowed to serve, he said "that, in the language of holy writ, there was a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times had passed away;" and in a voice that re-echoed through the church like a trumpet-blast, "that there was a time to fight, and that time had now come!"

The sermon finished, he pronounced the benediction. A breathless stillness brooded over the congregation. Deliberately putting off the gown, which had thus far covered his martial figure, he stood before them a girded warrior; and descending from the pulpit, ordered the drums at the church-door to beat for recruits. Then followed a scene to which even the American revolution, rich as it is in bright examples of the patriotic devotion of the people, affords no parallel. His audience, excited in the highest degree by the impassioned words which had fallen from his lips, flocked around him, eager to be ranked among his followers. Old men were seen bringing forward their children, wives their husbands, and widowed mothers their sons, sending them under his paternal care to fight the battles of their country. It must have been a noble sight, and the cause thus supported could not fail.

Nearly three hundred men of the frontier churches that day enlisted under his banner; and the gown then thrown off was worn for the last time. Henceforth his footsteps were destined for a new career.

This event occurred about the middle of January, 1776; and from that time until March, Colonel Muhlenberg seems to have been busily engaged in recruiting. After the great impulse already received, it is natural to suppose that his success was rapid; and such accordingly we find to be the fact. It was probably the first of the Virginia regiments ready for service, its ranks being full early in March. By the middle of that month he had already reported this fact to the Governor, and received orders to proceed with his command to Suffolk. On the 21st the regiment commenced its march for that place.(1)

Here's the paragraph about this from my book:

Muhlenberg is also the subject of a very popular myth that appears not only in religious right American history books, but a number of other books about the Revolutionary War. The story is that, on January 21, 1776, Muhlenberg preached his last sermon, at the end of which he dramatically ripped off his clerical robes, revealing an army uniform underneath, and issued a call to arms. Not a single contemporary source supports this story. It was created by Muhlenberg's grandnephew, Henry Augustus Muhlenberg, in his 1849 book The Life of Major-General Peter Muhlenberg of the Revolutionary Army, and is based on nothing more than a figurative statement in Samuel Kercheval's 1833 book A History of the Valley of Virginia, which said that Muhlenberg "laid off his gown and took up the sword." In spite of the fact that the story isn't true, there is a statue of Muhlenberg in the United States Capitol building, donated by the State of Pennsylvania in 1889, that depicts him taking off his clerical robes to reveal his uniform.

Henry Augustus Muhlenberg actually listed five sources in his notes for this story. The only one I included in the excerpt above, however, was Samuel Kercheval's 1833 book A History of the Valley of Virginia, mainly because Kercheval's book is the only one of H.A. Muhlenberg's five sources to even mention Peter Muhlenberg's clerical attire, albeit in a figurative manner.

This is the entire passage from Kercheval's book:

The reverend Mr. Peter Muhlenberg, a clergyman of the Lutheran profession, in the county of Shenandoah, laid off his gown and took up the sword. He was appointed a colonel, and, soon raised a regiment, called the 8th, consisting chiefly of young men of German extraction. Abraham Bowman was appointed to a majoralty in it, as was also Peter Helphinstine, of Winchester. It was frequently called the "German regiment." Muhlenberg was ordered to the south in 1776, and the unhealthiness of the climate proved fatal to many of his men.(2)

Before getting to H.A. Muhlenberg's other four sources, it needs to be explained why Samuel Kercheval is probably the most important of the five, and why the absence in Kercheval's book of anything indicating that an event as dramatic as that described by H.A. Muhlenberg took place is the best evidence that it didn't.

Samuel Kercheval was born in 1767 and grew up in Stone Bridge, Virginia, less than thirty miles from Woodstock, the site of the alleged disrobing. General John Smith, to whom Kercheval dedicated his book, settled in 1773 in Winchester, Virginia, also less than thirty miles from Woodstock. Kercheval wrote in his dedication that he had known General Smith for fifty years, and that it was Smith who provided him with much of the information for his book, something that is evident from the many notes throughout the book attributing various anecdotes to Smith. In addition to Kercheval's and Smith's close proximity to Woodstock at the time, Smith received his commission as a colonel on January 8, 1776, less than two weeks before Muhlenberg is said to have given his farewell sermon, and remained at Winchester as, among other things, a recruiting officer under, according to his pension records, Generals Morgan and Muhlenberg.

So, what are the chances that both Kercheval and Smith would have forgotten an event as memorable as Muhlenberg's dramatic sermon and disrobing? ...that Colonel Smith, a nearby army officer in this sparsely populated area, wouldn't have remembered that three hundred soldiers were recruited in a single day? ...that Samuel Kercheval would have omitted such a striking local story of patriotism in a book full of far less significant anecdotes?

The following are H.A. Muhlenberg's sources from the notes in his 1849 Life of Major-General Peter Muhlenberg. The list, of course, included Kercheval's book, despite the fact that it clearly does not support the story.

The facts stated in this account of General Muhlenberg's farewell sermon are abundantly established by all contemporaneous accounts. See particularly Thatcher's Military Journal, p. 184; Howe's Historical Collections of Virginia, p. 468; Kercheval's History of Valley of Virginia, p. 188; Rogers's Remembrancer of American Heroes, Statesmen, and Sages, p. 366; and Baird's Religion in America, p. 113.(3)

So, what about the other four sources?

Thacher's Military Journal, while written in 1778 by an army officer who did know Peter Muhlenberg, is not a good primary source for this story. All it shows is that Muhlenberg, by this time a brigadier general, seemed to be becoming a bit of a legend in his own time. James Thacher was a young army surgeon from Massachusetts, who, moving south as the war moved south, attached himself to the 1st Virginia Regiment until a Massachusetts regiment moved into the area. The following is the journal entry containing Thacher's second hand account of the story, heard two years after it allegedly occurred.

November 3d.-Having made a visit to Fishkill, I returned in company with Dr. Treat, our physician-general, and found a large number of gentlemen collecting to partake of an entertainment, by invitation of Brigadier-General Muhlenburg, who occupies a room in our hospital. The guests consisted of forty-one respectable officers, and our tables were furnished with fourteen different dishes, arranged in fashionable style. After dinner, Major-General Putnam was requested to preside, and he displayed no less urbanity at the head of the table than bravery at the head of his division. A number of toasts were pronounced, accompanied with humorous and merry songs. In the evening we were cheered with military music and dancing, which continued till a late hour in the night. General Muhlenburg was a minister of a parish in Virginia, but participating in the spirit of the times, exchanged his clerical profession for that of a soldier. Having In his pulpit inculcated the principles of liberty, and the cause of his country, he found no difficulty in enlisting a regiment of soldiers, and he was appointed their commander. He entered his pulpit with his sword and cockade, preached his farewell sermon, and the next day marched at the head of his regiment to join the army, and he does honor to the military profession.(4)

Even this account from Thacher differs significantly from H.A. Muhlenberg's 1849 story. There is no dramatic disrobing, and no mention at all of the content of Peter Muhlenberg's sermon. According to Thacher, Peter Muhlenberg entered the church in his uniform. Thacher also writes that Muhlenberg marched off with a regiment the very next day, while, even according to H.A. Muhlenberg's story, it was several months before the regiment was filled and began to march. In reality, neither H.A. Muhlenberg's nor Thacher's accounts are supported by the dates of each company's formation or the enlistment dates of the soldiers.

There are no surviving records of the Eighth Virginia Regiment from before 1777. Fortunately, however, most of the surviving 1777 muster rolls show the enlistment dates of the original soldiers who enlisted in the spring of 1776, including those who were killed or no longer with the company for other reasons. So, it is possible, using the rolls of these companies and a few other sources, such as statements from the pension applications of individual soldiers from the rest of the companies, to piece together enough information about the formation of this regiment to be certain that H.A. Muhlenberg's claim that 300 men enlisted on the day of Peter Muhlenberg's farewell sermon is impossible.

Not counting commissioned officers, the surviving muster rolls, for six out of the regiment's ten companies, show 424 men who enlisted in the spring of 1776. Not a single one of these men enlisted on the day that Peter Muhlenberg is said to have given his farewell sermon. While there were some men who did enlist in the last week of January, the majority were recruited, in their individual counties, in February and March. A full Virginia regiment at this time consisted of about 680 men, so even if every single man in the other four companies was at Peter Muhlenberg's sermon and enlisted on the spot, it couldn't have amounted to the 300 claimed by H.A. Muhlenberg. Add to this that only one of these four remaining companies was raised in a county near enough to Woodstock for it to be realistic to think that the men might have attended Muhlenberg's church, and another didn't even begin forming until April, and there is just no way that H.A. Muhlenberg's story could be true.

Another problem with H.A. Muhlenberg's account is his placing the date of the sermon in the middle of January. Similar variations of the story, most of which date it to January 21, also have this problem. The problem is that Peter Muhlenberg wouldn't have been in Woodstock in the middle of January, or even on January 21. Although receiving his commission on January 12, which under other circumstances would make January 21 the likely date, he received it at the Virginia Convention in Williamsburg, at which he was also a delegate. The convention didn't adjourn until Saturday, January 20, and the records indicate that Muhlenberg stayed to the end. Obviously, he could not have reached Woodstock by the next day.

H.A. Muhlenberg's next two sources, "Howe's Historical Collections of Virginia" and "Rogers's Remembrancer of American Heroes, Statesmen, and Sages," simply copy verbatim from the last two sentences of the two years after the fact, second hand account in James Thacher's journal entry, so neither can be considered an independent source.

From Henry Howe's Historical Collections of Virginia:

Gen. Peter Muhlenburg was a native of Pennsylvania, and by profession a clergyman of the Lutheran order. At the breaking out of the revolution, he was a young man about thirty years of age, and pastor of a Lutheran church at Woodstock. In 1776, he received the commission of colonel, and was requested to raise a regiment among the Germans of the valley. Having in his pulpit inculcated the principles of liberty, he found no difficulty in enlisting a regiment. He entered his pulpit with his sword and cockade, preached his farewell sermon, and the next day marched at the head of his regiment to join the army.(5)

From Thomas Jones Rogers's A New American Biographical Dictionary: Or, Rememberancer of the Departed Heroes, Sages, and Statesmen of America:

MUHLENBERG, PETER, a brave and distinguished officer during the revolutionary war, was a native of Pennsylvania. In early life he yielded to the wishes of his venerable father, the patriarch of the German Lutheran church in Pennsylvania, by becoming a minister of the Episcopal church, and participating in the spirit of the times, exchanged his clerical profession for that of a soldier. Having in his pulpit inculcated the principles of liberty, and the cause of his country, he found no difficulty in enlisting a regiment of soldiers, and he was appointed their commander. He entered his pulpit with his sword and cockade, preached his farewell sermon, and the next day marched at the head of his regiment to join the army.(6)

H.A. Muhlenberg's last source, "Baird's Religion in America," is no better. Baird didn't copy Thacher word for word like Howe and Rogers, but cited Thacher's Military Journal in the following footnote.

In one instance, an Episcopal Clergyman of Virginia, the Rev. Mr. Muhlenburg, relinquished his charge, accepted a commission as colonel in the American army, raised a regiment among his own parishioners, served through the whole war, and retired from the service at its close with the rank of a brigadier-general. The last sermon that he ever preached to his people before he left for the camp, was delivered in military dress. -- Thatcher's "Military Journal," p. 152.(7)

So, why has this story remained so popular for so many years? Well, in part it's because of a poem. The poem, first published in 1862, was part of Thomas Buchanan Read's The Wagoner of the Alleghanies. A Poem of the Days of Seventy-six. While Read's story is set on the banks of the Skuylkill in Pennsylvania, and includes many references to the actual historical events that took place in that area, it also has some parts that are loosely based on stories from elsewhere. One of these is the Peter Muhlenberg story.

In Read's original poem, as it appeared in The Wagoner of the Alleghanies, the church was at Berkley Manor, the Pennsylvania setting of the rest of the story, and the minister was a man with "snowy locks," not a young man of thirty like Muhlenburg. The story appears in a section of Read's poem titled"The Brave at Home," about the women preparing to say goodbye to the men -- mothers to sons, wives to husbands, and girlfriends to boyfriends. In fact, part of Read's description of the scene inside the church focused on Esther and Edgar, a young couple who would be separated when Edgar went off to war.

The pastor came; his snowy locks
Hallowed his brow of thought and care;
And, calmly as shepherds lead their flocks,
He led into the house of prayer.
Forgive the student Edgar there
If his enchanted eyes would roam,
And if his thoughts soared not beyond,
And if his heart glowed warmly fond
Beneath his hopes' terrestrial dome.
To him the maiden seemed to stand,
Veiled in the glory of the morn,
At the bar of the heavenly bourne,
A guide to the golden holy land.
When came the service' low response,
Hers seemed an angel's answering tongue;
When with the singing choir she sung,
O'er all the rest her sweet notes rung,
As if a silver bell were swung
Mid bells of iron and of bronze.

At times, perchance, -- oh, happy chance! --
Their lifting eyes together met,
Like violet to violet,
Casting a dewy greeting glance.
For once be Love, young Love, forgiven,
That here, in a bewildered trance,
He brought the blossoms of romance
And waved them at the gates of
heaven.(8)

"The Brave at Home" and "The Rising," the section immediately preceding it in The Wagoner of the Alleghanies, were popularized in the 1860s by the actor James Edward Murdoch, who did poetry readings to raise money to care for the wounded soldiers during the Civil War.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Thomas Buchanan Read's poetry became very popular in elocution and reading books. Among the most often seen Read selections in these books were excerpts from the"The Rising" and "The Brave at Home," combined in various ways into one poem which began to appear under titles such as "The Rising in 1776" or "The Revolutionary Rising." In these condensed versions, sections like the one above were removed, which conveniently got rid of the description of the pastor having "snowy locks." Interestingly, every single one of the books I can find that contains a note that this was about the Muhlenberg disrobing story also just happens to use a version of the poem in which the "snowy locks" verse is omitted.

Typical of this are William Holmes McGuffey's readers, which included a few stanzas from "The Rising" about Lexington and Concord, and then jumped to the following, from "The Brave at Home," omitting the section containing the stanza above, which falls after the first verse.

5. Within its shade of elm and oak
The church of Berkley Manor stood:
There Sunday found the rural folk,
And some esteemed of gentle blood,
In vain their feet with loitering tread
Passed 'mid the graves where rank is naught:
All could not read the lesson taught
In that republic of the dead.

6. The pastor rose: the prayer was strong;
The psalm was warrior David's song;
The text, a few short words of might, --
"The Lord of hosts shall arm the right!"

7. He spoke of wrongs too long endured,
Of sacred rights to be secured;
Then from his patriot tongue of flame
The startling words for Freedom came.
The stirring sentences he spake
Compelled the heart to glow or quake,
And, rising on his theme's broad wing,
And grasping in his nervous hand
The imaginary battle brand,
In face of death he dared to fling
Defiance to a tyrant king.

8. Even as he spoke, his frame, renewed
In eloquence of attitude,
Rose, as it seemed, a shoulder higher;
Then swept his kindling glance of fire
From startled pew to breathless choir;
When suddenly his mantle wide
His hands impatient flung aside,
And, lo! he met their wondering eyes
Complete in all a warrior's guise.

9. A moment there was awful pause, --
When Berkley cried, "Cease, traitor! cease!
God's temple is the house of peace!"
The other shouted, "Nay, not so,
When God is with our righteous cause:
His holiest places then are ours,
His temples are our forts and towers
That frown upon the tyrant foe:
In this the dawn of Freedom's day
There is a time to fight and pray!"

10. And now before the open door --
The warrior priest had ordered so --
The enlisting trumpet's sudden soar
Rang through the chapel, o'er and o'er,
Its long reverberating blow,
So loud and clear, it seemed the ear
Of dusty death must wake and hear.
And there the startling drum and fife
Fired the living with fiercer life;
While overhead with wild increase,
Forgetting its ancient toll of peace,
The great bell swung as ne'er before:
It seemed as it would never cease;
And every word its ardor flung
From off its jubilant iron tongue
Was, "WAR! WAR! WAR!"

11. "Who dares"--this was the patriot's cry,
As striding from the desk he came --
"Come out with me, in Freedom's name,
For her to live, for her to die?"
A hundred hands flung up reply,
A hundred voices answered "I!"
(9)

The following is from McGuffey's note on the sixth verse:

6. The pastor. This was John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg, who was at this time a minister at Woodstock, in Virginia. He was a leading spirit among those opposed to Great Britain, and in 1775 he was elected colonel of a Virginia regiment. The above poem describes his farewell sermon. At its close he threw off his ministerial gown, and appeared in full regimental dress. Almost every man in the congregation enlisted under him at the church door. ...(10)

As mentioned at the beginning of this post, the History Detectives did find the robe itself to be authentic. It was, in fact, owned by Peter Muhlenberg and given to Paul Henkel, a Lutheran minister in New Market, a town near Woodstock. According to one source, Muhlenberg was not well received in his former home upon his return from the war. The reason for this less than enthusiastic welcome is not clear, so I still have some more work to do on this story, but this does appear to be when Muhlenberg gave the robe to Henkel.

1. Henry A. Muhlenberg, The Life of Major-General Peter Muhlenberg of the Revolutionary Army, (Philadelphia: Carey and Hart, 1849), 50-54.
2. ibid., 337.
3. Samuel Kercheval, A History of the Valley of Virginia, (Woodstock, VA: John Gatewood, 1850), 124-125.
4. James Thacher, M.D., A Military Journal, During the American Revolutionary War from 1775 to 1783; Describing Interesting Events and Transactions of this Period; with Numerous Historical Facts and Anecdotes, from the Original Manuscript, (Boston: Cottons and Barnard, 1827), 151-152.
5. Henry Howe, Historical Collections of Virginia, (Charleston, SC: Babcock & Co., 1845), 468-469.6. 6. Thomas Jones Rogers, A New American Biographical Dictionary: Or, Rememberancer of the Departed Heroes, Sages, and Statesmen of America, (Easton, PA: Thomas J. Rogers, 1824), 366.
7. Robert Baird, Religion in America: Or an Account of the Origin, Relation to the State, and Present Condition of the Evangelical Churches in the united States, (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1844), 113n.
8. Thomas Buchanan Read, The Wagoner of the Alleghanies. A Poem of the Days of Seventy-six, (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1866), 88-89.
9. McGuffey's Fifth Eclectic Reader, (New York: American Book Company, 1907), 201-203.
10. ibid., 203-204.

So according to Ron Paul the US constitution is abundantly supplied and abounding with references to God? Which constitution is he reading? Why aren't any of my texts of the constitution similarly replete?

No, Congressman Paul, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would be aghast at you.

Just another indicator of how he can't be trustworthy and hides his own Christian Dominionist Supremacist roots.
He's a right wing Liberterian that concentrates only the the "rights & freedoms" of commerce and business and their owners. Not on civil liberties and personal freedoms.

The Legacy of Francis Bellamy "We assemble here that we, too, may exalt the free school that embodies the American principles of universal enlightenment and equality; the most characteristic......Bywilkyjr (1 comment)

Witchhunts in Africa and the U.S.A. Nigerian human rights activist Leo Igwe has recently written at least two blog posts about how some African Pentecostal churches are sending missionaries to Europe and the U.S.A. in an attempt to "re-evangelize the......Diane Vera(0 comments)

Charles Taze Russell and John Hagee No doubt exists that Texas mega-church Pastor John Hagee would be loathe to be associated with the theology of Pastor C.T. Russell (wrongly credited with founding the Jehovah's Witnesses) but their theological orbits, while......COinMS(0 comments)

Republican infighting in Mississippi After a bruising GOP runoff election for U.S. Senator, current MS Senator Thad Cochran has retained his position and will face Travis Childers (Democrat) in the next senate election. The MS GOP is fractured......COinMS(3 comments)